Default Notices - Updated Information!

[transformer999]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

I have attached a DN and was wandering for any help and advice on this please. It is for an unregulated loan and what I wanted to know is that will the DN regulations apply still as it was served after the financial removal limit in April 2008?

I know for a fact that the arrears stated on the DN are incorrect. DN dated 28 April 2010...received 30 April 2010.....15 days to remedy and pay in full makes it 13 May 2010 but there was a Bank Holiday on the 3 May 2010. I make it 11 days to remedy and pay in full.

Any help or advice will be great and as always thanks in advance to all.

[Paul.]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Brandon, Brandon, Brandon

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Brandon, Brandon, Brandon

and again - BRANDON!

---> AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

[transformer999]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

lol thanks Paul & Niddy...yes I know the Brandon case but what I am trying to ask is even though I am finding it difficult to put in words is that..........Brandon's agreement was regulated right & mine is not. Will my DN still have to be compliant regardless of this?

Feel free to shoot me if I am not making any sense

[transformer999]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

The DN issued in 2010 I would have thought should comply with the CCA as ALL agreements became regulated following the removal of limits in April 2008 in the CCA. and should comply with the exact details required of them under s.87(1) if they have started Legal Action,

[Henryhatter]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

What about the fact that the DN states "15 business days"? Doesn't that make it compliant?

[garlok]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

I believe numbers of days are not acceptable. the DN should state a date by which rectification is required.

regards
Garlok

[Paul.]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

seems to me that the unfair relationship provisions apply no matter, however, it seems from my reading that the removal of financial limits only takes effect to a previously unregulated agreement if the agreement is subsequently a modifying agreement ( see s82 CCA)

So, unless the agreement is a modifying agreement, if it is unregulated, then the default provisions are not applicible

[transformer999]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Thanks Paul...yes I believe the unfair relationship apply regardless.....and fighting/defending on that basis alone is like walking the plank.......unless you have one hell of a hot shot lawyer in your corner ..and anyone who has had you (defending them)...knows that success can be achieved if done properly.
.

My questions are that would a lender need a DN to litigate wether regulated or unregulated?

and

If these DN's are no good where would that leave their litigation and is this the right court?

and

Should this litigation relate to contract law?

any help, advice or nudge in the right direction would be very much appreciated.

[greymatter]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Niddy
I have a NW cc DN issued in 2003. Quote: 'Please read the Notice carefully and ensure that the payment of £xxx is credited to your account within 14 days of this notice'.The amount requested was the arrears.
This was followed by a TN dated 14 days later.Quote: 'Full payment of your o/s debt is now required'.

Would you say this is similar/same as Brandon and therefore UE,or not?
Thanks Niddy

[garlok]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Numbers of days is not acceptable, it should be a specific date. However back then I think only 7 days was required for rectification not the 14 as now. Niddy made recent comments about this yesterday I think it was.

regards
Garlok

[Paul.]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Correct mate seven days but it must state a date not a number of days

[garlok]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Thanks for clarifying my thinking Paul.

regards
Garlok

[Deepie]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

Correct mate seven days but it must state a date not a number of days

does this apply to all default notices now i.e must state a date not number of days???

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Notices - Updated Information!

does this apply to all default notices now i.e must state a date not number of days???

Yes! ALL default notices mate, ie "..... no later than 14 days" is a bad DN. ".... no later than 20th XX 2011" is a good DN (if it gives the starting day plus the required remedy period)